While we strive for a lively and vigorous debate of the issues, we do not tolerate name calling, foul language or other inappropriate behavior. Please see our discussion guidelines and terms of use for more information.

While we do our best to moderate comments, we do not screen comments before they are posted. If you see a comment that violates our guidelines, please use the "Report Abuse" link to notify us of the issue.

Me too, although for me it was cancelling DirecTV. We have both Netflix and Amazon Prime, at a combined fraction of the cost of satellite/cable. We're thinking of splurging and also getting Hulu Plus, but even with all three services it's a drop in the bucket compared to our old costs.

Yep. I've had over-the-air, netflix, amazon prime, and hulu plus for the past two years. Fox Sports for Brewers and Bucks games is all I miss. I thought I had the Brewers figured out, but MLB.TV blacks out your home team's games. Cable content needs to be opened up now! It sure takes a long time for the free market to resolve these issues.

For those of you who bailed on cable or sat. TV, do you get Packer and Badger games? I have a buddy that went to all computer (hulu?) and he now comes over to see games. Packers and Badgers are one of the few things care about on TV.

Hey cleatmarks! you like paying $1000.00 yr. for games. you can find a nice local tavern, a quite place or a noisy place, and enjoy the games with like minded people and better snacks than you can make yourself.

Cable TV is losing about 1% of subscribers per year. If revenue is rising, I would like to see the average and median cable bill. Both must be going up up and away since I dropped cable tv over a year ago.

Cleatmarks: I can get all Packers games over the air, as I live in the Milwaukee market. By NFL rule, even the Monday night games on ESPN or whatnot, have to be also shown over-the-air in the local markets (Green Bay and Milwaukee).

Badger games are another issue. I won't be able to see the Badger games that are on the B1G Network or ESPN or whatever. That's definitely a sacrifice. No FSN-Wisconsin for Brewer games is an even bigger sacrifice. But after a lot of thought, it just wasn't worth ~$1,000/year just to watch those games.

cleatmarks, without cable you can still easily get all Packer games (even the one's on the NFL Network. You'll have to find a bar for Badger games since apparently the NCAA is more greedy than the NFL.

For those with Amazon Prime, Hulu Plus, and Netflix. I like Netflix. I have also tried Hulu Plus and Amazon Prime, but I thought they were horrible (horrible selection - Amazon, horrible amount of ads - Hulu). Am I missing something?

I don't have Hulu so I can't speak to that. But between Netflix and Amazon Prime: If I had to pick just one, it would be Netflix. But Amazon Prime does carry some TV series that Netflix doesn't, and it's cheap enough to have both. I actually like the interface of Amazon Prime much better, so if there's a series on both, I'll watch it through Amazon.

Seriously. I want to know whether a Netflix offering that comes in via a computer can do HD w/Dolby surround.

Also, when watching You Tube concerts I haven't had problems with "freezing" momentarily to wait for the buffers to reload but it has happened. And videos from TMJ4 freeze, like the graphic on the Great Lakes Sunday did.

I admit, I dont know all the laws surrounding pay TV, but I think the one who goes ala cart first could be king. I would drop TW in a second if I could pick each channel I want from a competitor.... CBS is 100% right, we watch way less than what we pay for. We have been getting closer and closer to getting rid of cable. If they keep blocking out, but not lowering my bill, we will get rid of it. We have other choices...

What is meant by Cross subsidies stop and variety of programming decreases? I am able to find all the shows I watch on cable( a variety of shows if you will), on the internet, Netflix, Amazon, Etc. What am I missing here? Can someone explain what LostWisdom means?

eshea, cable companies sell you a package of channels and charge you an obscene amount. They (the cable companies) argue that if they went ala carte (where you pick what channels you want) that would lessen the variety of channels available. In other words, maybe 4 of the 30 ESPN channels would cease to exist and someone wouldn't be able to get the Bird Feeder channel off the ground.

I really get a kick out of the posts saying to leave TWC, Dish, etc... What do you think would happen to WTMJ or any other broadcaster if there were no subscribers to cable services and therefore no rebroadcast revenue?

ohbrad, in case you hadn't noticed, the "program" that you are watching is chopped into little pieces and DESIGNED I tell you, to lure you to sit through a commercial OR 10, because, ohbrad, the program is the filler that is there to force you to watch the commercials which actually PAY for you show.

In order to prevent us from DVR'ing the show to be reviewed later while 3X'ing the commercials, TW, in their latest "update" to the DVR/CABLE boxes removed the "commercial skip" feature that WAS "compensation time" for your reflexes.

A week or so ago I noticed that, having mastered the art of 3X FF through the commercials, all of a sudden the video stopped the instant I hit "PLAY" right where it was. For those who may not know, there used to be a menu selection that allowed for ANTICIPATE TIME more/less/normal/none. It is gone. I thought someone messed up my remote control and couldn't remember where that selection was located, finally "googling" the problem to learn that it was removed and is NOT coming back.

I want to dump TWC but can't find any a la carte products that carry internet and cable services without being loaded with some phone package that I don't want as a magicJack satisfied customer.

Viewers in Racine and Kenosha who get WBBM would lose that station under the same dispute because they get TWC service in those markets, though they would still have HD access to CBS via WDJT (WBBM isn't carried in HD in those cities). All TWC customers would possibly lose Showtime/The Movie Channel/Flix, CBS Sports Network and the Smithsonian Channel as they're all owned by CBS.

"...retransmission payments to stations by pay-TV services will reach $3 billion this year, doubling to $6 billion by 2018"

What sort of fantasy world are these media execs living in? This is not sustainable. We're already rapidly approaching $100/month for a regular tier of cable (plus the required equipment, franchise fees, and taxes). $200/month just isn't going to happen. There will be a breaking point for most consumers before that happens.

And it's not "A CABLE CHANNEL" as far as I've read. I don't need Dolby surround for Packer preseason games and have access to over the air broadcasts. I certainly wouldn't go nuts and say, "OH I NEED to buy that monster robber baron that is TWC so I can watch without using my TV remote to change the INPUT.

I think paying enormous subscriber fees for cable is really dumb. Views can have an abundant selection with better content from antenna TV and all it'll cost is a one time purchase(less than one month fee for cable) of a converter box that will work with any tv.

That's true. the converter box is only for older non-digital TVs. any modern LCD/etc will be digital-cable ready. There are digital antennae you can buy, but for me, at least, my old-school 20-year old rabbit ears give me good reception.

Unfortunately for me, the channels that I actually WATCH are NOT any of the over-the-air fare. Discovery, History, Nat Geo, TNT, USA, but I would be willing to try "a la carte" subscription but only for HD and Dolby surround.

I'm not an electrical engineer, but it seems it would be a relatively simple matter for DirecTV or Time Warner to build a digital antenna right into their DVR/receiver, and then integrate it right into the channel guide/tuner. So as you change the channel, say from ESPN to NBC, it automatically switches from the cable/satellite to the antenna without the viewer even noticing a difference. Then they wouldn't have to pay the networks anything for any re transmission rights.

Yes Gary. Radio waves continue to be fickle things that have a property known as "wavelength". It has to do with the ability of the antenna to orient with the polarity (vertical or horizontal), and the frequency (has to be reasonably close to the wavelength which changes with frequency) and the direction to the source.

With newer broadcast systems the frequencies get higher and higher to the point where the wavelength is measured in centimeters. THAT is a good thing because for a one centimeter wavelength, the antenna can be less than an inch long. There are VOLUMINOUS other issues but in general, even your cellphone has a "compromised" antenna system because one function called "gain" can be overcome with amplifiers and stuff.

Your brilliant idea has been "under advisement" for a couple of generations at least. But yours ARE great ideas.